7 ms·

Victimless is hard to define. By victimless I think you mean non-violent really. Even if there is a victim, if there was no violence, putting the perpetrator i

Victimless is hard to define. By victimless I think you mean non-violent really. Even if there is a victim, if there was no violence, putting the perpetrator into a jail/prison will create more violence. Also repeat offenses of non-violent crimes might be needed but most can be solved economically. For instance take someone who does some financial crime, why lock them up and have the public on the hook for 30k per year or more when they could be making money back they stole and mark them for some period of time similar to jail time. Why cost the public 30k+ per inmate at all if it isn't a violent crime? What a waste.

gnaritas 13y ago
No, I meant what I said. Victimeless, and no it's not at all hard to define. Drugs, sex, gambling, bigamy, etc; basically laws based on Christian morality that try and tell you it's wrong to do things that only involve consenting adults. Non-violent is another category, but I agree with you on that category, prison should be for the violent.
- benched 13y ago
  In Internet argument fashion, a bunch of people will just jump all over you, and take your words through every useless permutation of meaning they can think of, for which they can contrive a shallowly plausible counterargument. I grow more and more convinced that very few people read to comprehend.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    > I grow more and more convinced that very few people read to comprehend. As do I. I find myself continually defending things I didn't say because people are more concerned with arguing with what they think I meant rather than reading what I actually said.
  - drawkbox 13y ago
    I understood what he said. But nice fallacious empty message here. Tell me how you define victimless? How do you define violent? Which one is easier to define in court? Or would you rather just invade discussions with fallacies and attacking the messenger? Also didn't you just jump all over my message?
- drawkbox 13y ago
  Ok but defining victimless definitions would be a nightmare and ripe for abuse, violence is easy to define. Drugs are only violent if they are illegal, rape is violence, gambling is sometimes legal-- noone should ever be locked up for gambling -- it is not violent. Morals should not be used, civil rights and not affecting others rights should be the metric. You start involving morals, a bunch of religions have different ideas of that. Violence and invading others personal rights is easy to define. The reason why we have a black market problem is defining things on 'morals'.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    I could make the same argument about violence by talking about mental abuse. And as I said, morals are already involved, these crimes exist because of morals, not because they hurt people. The fact is, victimless is as easy to define as violence is or easy enough to have a pretty clear line. Consuming drugs hurts no one but the consumer. Having 5 wives hurts no one as long as they all consented. Gambling your own money should be your choice. While there may be the occasional things on the margin, most are quite clearly victimless.
    - drawkbox 13y ago
      I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think much of that type of thinking is what led to the black markets we have even though you use a smart way of defining victim. It can be interpreted all sorts of ways though. Civil rights and violence is much easier to define. Also as time goes on and systems change, the definition of victim might change i.e. in war, terrorism etc. If it is based solely on violence and civil rights then there is a clear line. But good discussion, sometimes in discussions people have different points of view and that is ok.
      - gnaritas 13y ago
        Yes, we can agree to disagree. Violence is also murky to define, I feel you're glossing over that a bit. All kinds of abuse exists that don't involve physical violence that are quite easily argued as violence.
- eqdw 13y ago
  > No, I meant what I said. Victimeless, and no it's not at all hard to define. Drugs, sex, gambling, bigamy, etc; basically laws based on Christian morality that try and tell you it's wrong to do things that only involve consenting adults. I generally agree with you, and do not at all believe Christian morality is a good basis for laws. That said, I have to play devil's advocate > Drugs In a world where the government provides health care as a service (which is where we're trending, eventually), abusing your own health does have a victim: the taxpayer. Granted, we don't like to think about it this way, and when we do it's usually for political showmanship instead of a real reason. But in the same way, building/living in a house that isn't up to fire or earthquake standards is a 'victimless' crime..... until my house catches on fire and burns down the whole block > gambling Gambling is often predatory to the poorer classes of society. Depending on how you're defining victim, low-income-earners could be seen as victims of gambling > bigamy Bigamy is historically correlated with misogyny. Also, ironically, bigamy is not a violation of christian morality; there are myriad examples of one-man-many-woman relationships in the Bible
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    > In a world where the government provides health care as a service (which is where we're trending, eventually), abusing your own health does have a victim: the taxpayer. An almost fair point... if and only if we get there, I'm not yet convinced we will, however drug use is not drug abuse. To call it a health issue it'd first have to affect your health negatively. If it does, that can be seen by the doctor and noted and then maybe you can be taxed higher to compensate, but use is not abuse. Also, serious abuse could save tax payers money by killing you. So just because something affects your health negatively doesn't mean it costs more over your lifetime. > Gambling is often predatory to the poorer classes of society. Depending on how you're defining victim, low-income-earners could be seen as victims of gambling I reject the notion that you can be your own victim. If you choose to make decisions that hurt you, you must suffer the consequences; it is not the state's place to protect you from yourself. Jumping out of a perfectly good air plane is legal, and has a very high chance of killing you compared to other hobbies but we don't outlaw that. > Bigamy is historically correlated with misogyny. Not a reason to make it a crime. I'm allowed to hate things. > Also, ironically, bigamy is not a violation of christian morality; there are myriad examples of one-man-many-woman relationships in the Bible It's a violation of modern Christian morality; times change and so do the church's sense of morals.
- jcalvinowens 13y ago
  > Drugs, sex, gambling, bigamy, etc; basically laws based on Christian morality I'm curious what you say to the argument that manufacturing and profiting off extremely addictive and harmful drugs (ie meth or heroin) is a victumful crime? Many people get "hooked" on drugs like this, and it often ruins them both physiologically and financially. How can you justify ignoring such people as victims? Especially if they were young or even children when they started?
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    OK, first, leave children out of this discussion. That's a play on emotions and doesn't belong in a discussion about what consenting adults should or shouldn't be allowed to do. As with all things children related, we can have different laws for them; giving children drugs is victimizing them as they're not capable of making those choices legally or emotionally. Now, to your point. No one forced anyone to try drugs; I reject any notion that you're your own victim. If you choose to put something in your body, that's a choice, you were not victimized by anyone. That it can and does often ruin people both physiologically and financially are called consequences of your actions. No one forced you, there is no victim here.
    - humanrebar 13y ago
      You didn't leave religion or sex out of the discussion, so getting ticked off at someone else's pandering seems a bit hypocritical.
      - gnaritas 13y ago
        I didn't get ticked off, and religion and sex are relevant, children are not as I've been clear about "between consenting adults" for precisely this reason.
    - jcalvinowens 13y ago
      > OK, first, leave children out of this discussion. That's a play on emotions I'm not meaning to play emotions; however, I don't think you can just write it off: if all drugs were legalized, you would see use among youth increase (just as you would likely see an increase in any other subset of the population). > If you choose to put something in your body, that's a choice, you were not victimized by anyone. For me, very physiologically addictive substances are a different category: in that case, you have somebody with full knowledge of the danger and addictiveness of the drug knowingly enticing others to start using it with the end goal of causing them to become addicted and making a lot of money off of them. I see that as a very low form of extortion. I will not try meth because, despite whatever curiosity I have about the drug's effects, I know I am probably not capable of willing my way out of a very real physical addiction. Somebody less educated and rational is much more likely to say, "Sure, I'll try it once", and go downhill from there. For me, that person is being victimized. Sure, they made the decision, but it was an uninformed one. Now, I have no idea how to solve that problem. I think that the US's ridiculous drug policy probably ruins more lives than the drugs would if they were legal. But whenever I think about blanket legalization, I can't escape feeling uneasy about the above.
- agapos 13y ago
  Drugs? Victimless? You may want to ask the Mexicans about that. The way I see, drug usage as an act itself may be victimless (though highly unlikely), but the way it reaches it's costumers is sure as hell isn't.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    Those problems are not created by the drugs, you need to stop falling for this propaganda. Those problems are created by the laws against drugs. Legalize and those problems evaporate, buy your drugs from the pharmacy. Prohibition creates crime, this is well known, and a lesson we should have learned with alcohol and gangsters.
pstuart 13y ago
Fraud is non-violent but people are hurt by it.
- drawkbox 13y ago
  So would you rather have the fraudster go to jail costing the tax payers 30k per year, or have them out and working to make back that money? If you like the former then fraudsters allow the entire taxpayer base to absorb their fraud with a fee on top to keep them locked up (more losses), that will happen either way but it would be nice if they were working for that back rather than locked up. If you commit fraud you are also marked for some time after like probation but no jail time unless you repeat offend or cause violence. Making fraudsters work is probably more of a fear than jail for some.
  - humanrebar 13y ago
    Should Bernie Madoff have gone to jail? I think so. There's no way he would have worked off his debt.
    - drawkbox 13y ago
      There is no way to work off a debt that big. But adding 30k plus per year to that debt (probably much higher for his luxury suite) is even worse. His debt to society is being paid with more debt to society. What Bernie should have to do is work for x amount of years at a lowly job, or some job that he'd never take in life to earn back as much as he can during his sentence outside of the prison (not talking about a debtors prison but fraud). Financial fraud would re-think if they needed to work at McDonalds for years after during their sentence rather than their comfy suite. It is not like they wouldn't also be marked just like a normal locked up criminal is.
      - humanrebar 13y ago
        The point isn't paying off his debt (neither are fines, by the way). The points include justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation, depending on your moral viewpoint. Also, what you describe is basically indentured servitude, which is a pretty old-fashioned form of punishment.

gnaritas 13y ago

No, I meant what I said. Victimeless, and no it's not at all hard to define. Drugs, sex, gambling, bigamy, etc; basically laws based on Christian morality that try and tell you it's wrong to do things that only involve consenting adults. Non-violent is another category, but I agree with you on that category, prison should be for the violent.

benched 13y ago
In Internet argument fashion, a bunch of people will just jump all over you, and take your words through every useless permutation of meaning they can think of, for which they can contrive a shallowly plausible counterargument. I grow more and more convinced that very few people read to comprehend.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  > I grow more and more convinced that very few people read to comprehend. As do I. I find myself continually defending things I didn't say because people are more concerned with arguing with what they think I meant rather than reading what I actually said.
- drawkbox 13y ago
  I understood what he said. But nice fallacious empty message here. Tell me how you define victimless? How do you define violent? Which one is easier to define in court? Or would you rather just invade discussions with fallacies and attacking the messenger? Also didn't you just jump all over my message?
drawkbox 13y ago
Ok but defining victimless definitions would be a nightmare and ripe for abuse, violence is easy to define. Drugs are only violent if they are illegal, rape is violence, gambling is sometimes legal-- noone should ever be locked up for gambling -- it is not violent. Morals should not be used, civil rights and not affecting others rights should be the metric. You start involving morals, a bunch of religions have different ideas of that. Violence and invading others personal rights is easy to define. The reason why we have a black market problem is defining things on 'morals'.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  I could make the same argument about violence by talking about mental abuse. And as I said, morals are already involved, these crimes exist because of morals, not because they hurt people. The fact is, victimless is as easy to define as violence is or easy enough to have a pretty clear line. Consuming drugs hurts no one but the consumer. Having 5 wives hurts no one as long as they all consented. Gambling your own money should be your choice. While there may be the occasional things on the margin, most are quite clearly victimless.
  - drawkbox 13y ago
    I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think much of that type of thinking is what led to the black markets we have even though you use a smart way of defining victim. It can be interpreted all sorts of ways though. Civil rights and violence is much easier to define. Also as time goes on and systems change, the definition of victim might change i.e. in war, terrorism etc. If it is based solely on violence and civil rights then there is a clear line. But good discussion, sometimes in discussions people have different points of view and that is ok.
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      Yes, we can agree to disagree. Violence is also murky to define, I feel you're glossing over that a bit. All kinds of abuse exists that don't involve physical violence that are quite easily argued as violence.
eqdw 13y ago
> No, I meant what I said. Victimeless, and no it's not at all hard to define. Drugs, sex, gambling, bigamy, etc; basically laws based on Christian morality that try and tell you it's wrong to do things that only involve consenting adults. I generally agree with you, and do not at all believe Christian morality is a good basis for laws. That said, I have to play devil's advocate > Drugs In a world where the government provides health care as a service (which is where we're trending, eventually), abusing your own health does have a victim: the taxpayer. Granted, we don't like to think about it this way, and when we do it's usually for political showmanship instead of a real reason. But in the same way, building/living in a house that isn't up to fire or earthquake standards is a 'victimless' crime..... until my house catches on fire and burns down the whole block > gambling Gambling is often predatory to the poorer classes of society. Depending on how you're defining victim, low-income-earners could be seen as victims of gambling > bigamy Bigamy is historically correlated with misogyny. Also, ironically, bigamy is not a violation of christian morality; there are myriad examples of one-man-many-woman relationships in the Bible
- gnaritas 13y ago
  > In a world where the government provides health care as a service (which is where we're trending, eventually), abusing your own health does have a victim: the taxpayer. An almost fair point... if and only if we get there, I'm not yet convinced we will, however drug use is not drug abuse. To call it a health issue it'd first have to affect your health negatively. If it does, that can be seen by the doctor and noted and then maybe you can be taxed higher to compensate, but use is not abuse. Also, serious abuse could save tax payers money by killing you. So just because something affects your health negatively doesn't mean it costs more over your lifetime. > Gambling is often predatory to the poorer classes of society. Depending on how you're defining victim, low-income-earners could be seen as victims of gambling I reject the notion that you can be your own victim. If you choose to make decisions that hurt you, you must suffer the consequences; it is not the state's place to protect you from yourself. Jumping out of a perfectly good air plane is legal, and has a very high chance of killing you compared to other hobbies but we don't outlaw that. > Bigamy is historically correlated with misogyny. Not a reason to make it a crime. I'm allowed to hate things. > Also, ironically, bigamy is not a violation of christian morality; there are myriad examples of one-man-many-woman relationships in the Bible It's a violation of modern Christian morality; times change and so do the church's sense of morals.
jcalvinowens 13y ago
> Drugs, sex, gambling, bigamy, etc; basically laws based on Christian morality I'm curious what you say to the argument that manufacturing and profiting off extremely addictive and harmful drugs (ie meth or heroin) is a victumful crime? Many people get "hooked" on drugs like this, and it often ruins them both physiologically and financially. How can you justify ignoring such people as victims? Especially if they were young or even children when they started?
- gnaritas 13y ago
  OK, first, leave children out of this discussion. That's a play on emotions and doesn't belong in a discussion about what consenting adults should or shouldn't be allowed to do. As with all things children related, we can have different laws for them; giving children drugs is victimizing them as they're not capable of making those choices legally or emotionally. Now, to your point. No one forced anyone to try drugs; I reject any notion that you're your own victim. If you choose to put something in your body, that's a choice, you were not victimized by anyone. That it can and does often ruin people both physiologically and financially are called consequences of your actions. No one forced you, there is no victim here.
  - humanrebar 13y ago
    You didn't leave religion or sex out of the discussion, so getting ticked off at someone else's pandering seems a bit hypocritical.
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      I didn't get ticked off, and religion and sex are relevant, children are not as I've been clear about "between consenting adults" for precisely this reason.
  - jcalvinowens 13y ago
    > OK, first, leave children out of this discussion. That's a play on emotions I'm not meaning to play emotions; however, I don't think you can just write it off: if all drugs were legalized, you would see use among youth increase (just as you would likely see an increase in any other subset of the population). > If you choose to put something in your body, that's a choice, you were not victimized by anyone. For me, very physiologically addictive substances are a different category: in that case, you have somebody with full knowledge of the danger and addictiveness of the drug knowingly enticing others to start using it with the end goal of causing them to become addicted and making a lot of money off of them. I see that as a very low form of extortion. I will not try meth because, despite whatever curiosity I have about the drug's effects, I know I am probably not capable of willing my way out of a very real physical addiction. Somebody less educated and rational is much more likely to say, "Sure, I'll try it once", and go downhill from there. For me, that person is being victimized. Sure, they made the decision, but it was an uninformed one. Now, I have no idea how to solve that problem. I think that the US's ridiculous drug policy probably ruins more lives than the drugs would if they were legal. But whenever I think about blanket legalization, I can't escape feeling uneasy about the above.
agapos 13y ago
Drugs? Victimless? You may want to ask the Mexicans about that. The way I see, drug usage as an act itself may be victimless (though highly unlikely), but the way it reaches it's costumers is sure as hell isn't.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  Those problems are not created by the drugs, you need to stop falling for this propaganda. Those problems are created by the laws against drugs. Legalize and those problems evaporate, buy your drugs from the pharmacy. Prohibition creates crime, this is well known, and a lesson we should have learned with alcohol and gangsters.

pstuart 13y ago

Fraud is non-violent but people are hurt by it.

drawkbox 13y ago
So would you rather have the fraudster go to jail costing the tax payers 30k per year, or have them out and working to make back that money? If you like the former then fraudsters allow the entire taxpayer base to absorb their fraud with a fee on top to keep them locked up (more losses), that will happen either way but it would be nice if they were working for that back rather than locked up. If you commit fraud you are also marked for some time after like probation but no jail time unless you repeat offend or cause violence. Making fraudsters work is probably more of a fear than jail for some.
- humanrebar 13y ago
  Should Bernie Madoff have gone to jail? I think so. There's no way he would have worked off his debt.
  - drawkbox 13y ago
    There is no way to work off a debt that big. But adding 30k plus per year to that debt (probably much higher for his luxury suite) is even worse. His debt to society is being paid with more debt to society. What Bernie should have to do is work for x amount of years at a lowly job, or some job that he'd never take in life to earn back as much as he can during his sentence outside of the prison (not talking about a debtors prison but fraud). Financial fraud would re-think if they needed to work at McDonalds for years after during their sentence rather than their comfy suite. It is not like they wouldn't also be marked just like a normal locked up criminal is.
    - humanrebar 13y ago
      The point isn't paying off his debt (neither are fines, by the way). The points include justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation, depending on your moral viewpoint. Also, what you describe is basically indentured servitude, which is a pretty old-fashioned form of punishment.